[thxbb12]

You are proving my point. The 1st you made into a fantasy landscape, straight out of fantasy movies. The 2nd looks unnatural, making the viewer wonder what exactly is reflecting that light on the back of the people sitting on that bench, light should not be that omni directional, with our brain telling us there can't be that back light combines with the odd software illumination of the subject. And why you think this is out of the realm of the RP sensor is a mystery to me, anyhow.
The 3rd, also strange light that does not really work, but the best of the three and fine for a family album, ofcourse. But not a great image, due to the light conditions and/or choices in post processing.

In many cases it is almost the opposite: for attractive images, in respect to DR, "the less" the merrier.

To recap: The images you posted and what you did with them of course can be made with a Canon EOS RP. The results are less than attractive, with odd, flat light that puzzles your brain (due to unexplained omni directional light effects). As photographer you should embrace light, which includes shadows. No reason to be afraid of shadows, and indeed, the dark.

You do not make a great case for "the need" for very high DR.

I never posted these images to find out whether you like them or not - it's actually a good thing you don't like them, if we all had the same tastes, can you imagine how boring our lives would be? . Their sole purpose was to illustrate my point about DR.

There are a few things you don't seem to understand when we talk about DR.
There is 1) the source DR, as in the RAW image that was captured, and 2) the final output DR as in the post-processed image.
In 1) you want as much DR as possible as it gives you more post-processing flexibility/latitude (pull shadows, recover highlights, etc.).
Then, once you're happy with the post-processing, you don't necessarily need much DR to represent the final output.
If the sensor has low DR, then you will be limited by how much processing you can achieve with the file. It's unrelated to the DR of the final output.

As you can see, the first example has quite a bit of noise everywhere du to the fact I exposed for the clouds (shot on a MFT 16MP sensor). Have I had exposed for the foreground, the sky would be plain white.
Now, if I had shot this image with a Canon RP, the result would have been worse. Its DR is lower than MFT at this ISO. On the other hand, a Nikon Z6 or Z7 would have given me much better result.

That was my point, but somehow you never seem/want to agree for some puzzling reasons (insecurities?). Again, I'm not talking about personal preferences here, but just facts about sensors.

PS: given your "the less" DR the merrier motto, you must be sorely missing shooting slide film

---

The point here is not: do the images look natural or fake (I like them, btw). It is simply a matter of personal taste how much pulling of shadows (or highlights) one still finds attractive or considers HDR overkill. There is no right or wrong.

The point is: does the camera's sensor provide enough information to offer some buffer for this kind of post processing or not.

---

for those shots I can easily have the same result using RP, however I would  have exposed a little more to the right without burning out highlights to avoid noise in shadow areas.
shooting to the right then decreasing exposure to taste is always a valid approach

As you can see in the lower shot, there is already some clipping in the bright spots of the clouds. So, moving exposure further to the right probably would have caused trouble.

Thanks, Markus, that's exactly what I was trying to explain

---

You are proving my point. The 1st you made into a fantasy landscape, straight out of fantasy movies. The 2nd looks unnatural, making the viewer wonder what exactly is reflecting that light on the back of the people sitting on that bench, light should not be that omni directional, with our brain telling us there can't be that back light combines with the odd software illumination of the subject. And why you think this is out of the realm of the RP sensor is a mystery to me, anyhow.
The 3rd, also strange light that does not really work, but the best of the three and fine for a family album, of course. But not a great image, due to the light conditions and/or choices in post processing.

In many cases it is almost the opposite: for attractive images, in respect to DR, "the less" the merrier.

Sorry BC, but first photo is very nice on screen at low resolution can't say about shadow noise at higher resolution on prints
for picture 2 already the original is slightly underexposed.
As for picture 3, end result is just fine, ideally a reflector or off camera  flash would have been perfect, but I know how things go with kids..... when it's one kid, wife would happily help you with reflector, but  with two kids, being able to hold your camera and snap a few photos is already a struggle

Indeed, Toni.
I have 2 daughters which, at the time of this shot where 2 and 5.

Carrying a reflector or using a tripod or anything else than just snapping away with 2 kids and a wife? Aahahah, good luck!


Bottom line: good DR helps (if only to recover wrongly exposed shots) :-)
Who would in their right mind say something like: "I love this X sensor because it's got only 5 stops of DR, yay!"